It’s one thing to make some California public school kids watch movies designed to brainwash them into accepting gays, but must we bully children into learning about homosexuals in their textbooks? State Sen. Mark Leno, THAT HOMO, thinks so.

SB48 would require all California public school textbooks to include material highlighting the historic and cultural contributions made by gays. It’s all a way, Leno says, to combat school bullying by teaching young kids that homos have been decent members of society for generations, not merely a group of well-dressed walkers.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #bullying #california #education stories and more

45 Comments

Daez

Seems like a great way to fire more teachers as well.

I mean, seriously, when we had black history month in school, most of the teachers looked the other way or took the easy way out. Some of them simply glanced it over.

The PARENT has the right to decide what their kid should or should not learn. Its not up to the school board.

Yet another case of trying to force feed the populous. When will people learn that every time you force feed a child they react negatively to the information? Instead of making bullying less rare, the uproar by parents combined with the way most school boards will actually handle such a mandate will do more to make a new generation of Ms. Maggies.

December 14, 2010 at 3:12pm

Finn

@Diaz: I tend to agree with your post. I think that forcing anyone to participate in something that promotes specific tolerance for one group is silly. I think school boards should take an approach of respecting everyone. Respect the gay students for being a human being with certain beliefs and ideas and respect the religious student who disagrees with that and has their own specific beliefs and ideas. Don’t call one student a bigot and one a victim. Just make it clear that all students should respect one an other.

December 14, 2010 at 3:12pm

Justin O.

I don’t want my children to learn about violence, so I demand they stop teaching wars in history class.

Mark Twain was an avowed racist, so I demand my children don’t have to read his books in English.

I don’t want my children to learn about slavery, so we have to cut out any mention of slaveowning Founding Fathers from our curriculum.

Saying that children have to learn about what contributions to our country’s history were made by *gasp* people who were not white and not male and not straight? That’s totally unreasonable.

December 14, 2010 at 4:12pm

Kevin

We have enough problems with basic historical literacy to try to include much detail on the contributions of gay individuals. Hell, outside of very recent western history, “gay” as a concept has little to no meaning. While there have been gay people within the last century or so who have contributed greatly to society, they generally get just about as much attention as they deserve. We tend not to go into too much detail about the sex lives of historical figures and I don’t see why gay ones should be treated any differently. There are too many kids running around not knowing that there was such a thing as the Spanish-American War (for example) to spend classroom time on the sexual inclinations of historical figures.

December 14, 2010 at 4:12pm

Justin O.

The failures of the educational system isn’t a reason to give up and say we can’t do better. Yes, people need to know the Spanish-American war happened. They also need to know that Harvey Milk existed, especially in California history classes.

December 14, 2010 at 4:12pm

John (CA)

It is all academic at this point.

Where does Governor-elect Jerry Brown stand?

Does Leno even have the votes’?

It will sail through the Assembly because the Democrats will have a huge 52 to 27 majority in that chamber when the new legislature convenes. And most of the Democrats in the lower house are from liberal Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay Area anyhow.

However, the Democrats will only have 24 seats out of 40 in the more conservative Senate. Even assuming that Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom will vote for it in the event of a tie, they can only lose up to a maximum of four “Blue Dog” senators. I imagine lawmakers from the Central Valley and Mojave Desert will encounter significant opposition from their constituents.

December 14, 2010 at 4:12pm

James

@Daez: “It’s not up to the school board?” These types of arguments come from a woefully ill-informed place. The only rights that parents have against schools or school boards are the ones enumerated in statutes, i.e. opt-out rights. Nowhere under common or statutory law are parents endowed with “rights” to determine what a school board does and does not teach their children because a parent can freely re-educate (read: indoctrinate) their child in the privacy of their own home in any way they see fit.

December 14, 2010 at 4:12pm

Stephen Thorn

I can only speak from my own personal experience as a former middle school teacher. Therefore, I don’t make any claims to be an expert. However, with that said, I found that in the 15 1/2 years I taught public school students, they do pay attention to the depictions of minority groups in their textbooks. It won’t necessarily change their perspectives of these groups (which are really dictated, most often, by their parents’ personal viewpoints). However, it at least makes them aware that not everyone shares their parents’ (often prejudiced) views about these minority groups. Again, it’s just my own personal opinion, but I believe the more positive exposure LGBT people receive, the more accepted we will become by society in general. Consequently, the high rate of LGBT teen suicides (as well as the pervasive bullying of LGBT students) will be affected conversely over time. So ultimately, it’s a win-win situation for the LGBT community for us to be depicted positively in school textbooks.

December 14, 2010 at 4:12pm

Michael

The government needs to get out of the education business. Public education simply is not working, and it’s time to turn the whole thing over to the private sector. Vouchers for private schools is the answer!

I live in that shithole of a state for 23 years before I wised up and moved out.

You can’t MANDATE that people read this or learn that.

Oy.

December 14, 2010 at 4:12pm

Justin O.

@Rick Gold: Sure you can. It’s called public education. Every civilized country in the world does it to some extent.

December 14, 2010 at 4:12pm

Mark

@Rick Gold: Uh, well, yes you can. It’s called completing a standard curriculum in order to graduate and move on.

December 14, 2010 at 5:12pm

McMike

Oh, so textbooks don’t mention Shakespeare, Socrates, Michelangelo, Alexander the Great, George Washington, Leonardo DiVinci, Abraham Lincoln??? Is this bill going to require we identify who wasn’t heterosexual or are they just going to pick and choose who gets “outed”?

btw, why are most of the first comments so outlandish? Gays have only been around for 100 years??? WTF kind of bullshite is this? Parents have the right to decide what their children are taught??? HUH? That would be a PRIVATE EDUCATION because we’re talking about the public school system and parents do not get to pick and choose if Sally or Bob can continue being another bigot apple fallen from their tree in our public schools. If parents don’t want their children to practice tolerance then they need to yank them and put their kids in good Christian schools were hate can flourish. Let’s just hope little Billy Bob isn’t planning on becoming an altar boy.

December 14, 2010 at 5:12pm

John

@Daez: Wrong. When you force me and everyone else to pay for your child’s education in a government-run institution you take the strings that come with it. One of these strings is obvious: ALL those who help pay for the education system have every right to give input as to what is taught. Sounds like a good argument for school choice if that’s a problem for you…

December 14, 2010 at 5:12pm

Dean

@Kevin: Actually most school children learn about the wife of George Washington. Shouldn’t they also learn as a matter of fact about the husband of Alexander the Great (to whom he built many monuments, some of which still stand 2,000 years later)?

December 14, 2010 at 5:12pm

Dean

@John (CA): On the contrary, Democrats will have 25 of the 40 seats in the State Senate.

December 14, 2010 at 5:12pm

Dean

Any mention of the sexual orientation and family lives of historical figures or of gay and heterosexual communities should be treated the same as is done for race, ethnicity, sex, or religion – no more, no less.

December 14, 2010 at 5:12pm

John (CA)

@Dean: Senator Oropeza of Long Beach was posthumously re-elected in November. She died during the final weeks of the campaign. The Secretary of State lists that seat as a win for the Democrats. But she won’t be there when new and returning members are sworn in.

A special election will be held to fill her seat in 2011.

There’s little doubt that seat will remain in Democratic hands. However, these vacancies typically take quite a few months to resolve. By the time a new senator is elected and seated, I think this bill may have been voted on already.

December 14, 2010 at 7:12pm

B

In No 4, Kevin wrote, “We tend not to go into too much detail about the sex lives of historical figures and I don’t see why gay ones should be treated any differently.”

Because governments didn’t persecute straight people for being straight. As an example look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing and then ask what might have happened if the state had found out that this particular person was gay before rather than after World War II. Eventually, the British government offered a posthumous apology for how this person was treated.

December 14, 2010 at 8:12pm

ewe

It’s one thing to make some California public school kids watch movies designed to brainwash them into accepting straights, but must we bully children into learning about heterosexuality in their textbooks? State Sen. FILL IN THE BLANK, THAT HETERO, thinks so.

Katie Murphy

Put Maggie in the textbooks as an example of our own talibangelicals. People who should be whipped and sent to Saudi Arabia with their bibles. Where our Muslim friends will know what to do with these anything but Christian creeps.

December 14, 2010 at 11:12pm

Katie Murphy

@McMike: Parents can send their kids to whatever private school they want. They can pay for it also.

There is no law requiring you to take unemployment insurance, social security, get a drivers license etc etc. You just do not get the benefits.

And really we do need hate speech control laws. If hitler had been subject to imprisonment for his hate speech against the Jews, WWII and 55 million deaths might well have been avoided.

And why did hitler hate the Jews – he was a catholic who detailed that hatred in his book Mein Kampf. hatred he learned in a very catholic and poisoned society.

And the creeps of the catholic church have yet to excommunicate the worst monster in modern history. Wwhile out of their butts they blow out their propaganda smoke screen about protecting life.

December 14, 2010 at 11:12pm

den

@Justin O – Your Mark Twain comment is silly. He was a product of his time and his work showed his evolution from the child of slave holders to a man who viewed people as people. Perhaps you should read Huckleberry Finn, the book, not the cliff notes. Anyway – who the hell wrote this post to begin with. Why shouldn’t schools be led in how to frame contributions from gay people?

December 14, 2010 at 11:12pm

Aaron in Honolulu

@Kevin, No. 4

“We tend not to go into too much detail about the sex lives of historical figures and I don’t see why gay ones should be treated any differently.”

– Sexual orientation does not necessarily deal with the act of sex. I could not have sex for the rest of my life and I’d still be identified as a gay man. This notion is your own subjective definition of homosexuality that you impose on gay people. You could say the same thing about Garret Morgan, a black man who invented the traffic signal. What does him being black have to do with inventing a great invention? He is mentioned quite often during Black History Month segments on television. The reason we mention him is to show how African Americans have contributed to society. The key element in equality for minorities is EXPOSURE: showing that they exist.

– – – – – – – – –

@Finn, No. 2

“I think that forcing anyone to participate in something that promotes specific tolerance for one group is silly. I think school boards should take an approach of respecting everyone. Respect the gay students for being a human being with certain beliefs and ideas and respect the religious student who disagrees with that and has their own specific beliefs and ideas.”

– In order to combat bullying in school, you first have to specifically identify the target of the bullying. Just saying to children that ‘they shouldn’t bully anyone’ has only proven to be ineffective. You have to specifically mention the various labels: gay, lesbian, black, asian, muslim, jewish, disabled, middle class, etc. Discussion of these labels broadens theirs view of society and exposes them to all the various differences that make us unique. If we can’t address or identify the labels, how can we challenge them?

– – – – – – – – –

@Michael, No. 9

“The government needs to get out of the education business. Public education simply is not working, and it’s time to turn the whole thing over to the private sector. Vouchers for private schools is the answer!”

– Your state government funds public school education. Whether you like it or not, they are involved and will always be involved. Your statement is silly.

December 15, 2010 at 1:12am

Justin O.

@den: You need some sarcasm detection, methinks – I was demonstrating equal inane logic being used by some of the first commentators on this post. It was not meant to actually represent my views.

December 15, 2010 at 1:12am

PatrickB

@Kevin: “There are too many kids running around not knowing that there was such a thing as the Spanish-American War (for example) to spend classroom time on the sexual inclinations of historical figures.”

That would make sense if historical figures were sexual orientation-less to begin with. But since we learn about people’s wives and husbands and lovers, we already get a good deal of hetero-sexual inclinations in history class. Time to even the score.

My high school went so far as to straight-wash Adrienne Rich… this bill is far overdue.

December 15, 2010 at 2:12am

SteveAtlanta

@Kevin: You’re a hater trolling the board. TROLL. Being gay is much more than who you have sex with. Sexual inclinations are not what being gay is about when we’re shot, killed, fired, harrased, kicked out of the military and witness a fraction of the rights as hetros do. We need to highlight our existence, highlight our presence, and highlight our contributions which is many. Gay folks share genes, a lineage, and a COMMUNITY that has fought and triumphed together and that story has to be told. But you are a hating, bigoted troll and the best sure bet way to spot one of you is when you instantly make the correlation between gay being “just who you sleep with”

December 15, 2010 at 5:12am

SteveAtlanta

DAEZ is an ill informed, bigoted, idiot who spews anti gay drivel and ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYSSSSSSSS is on the side that is against the “pro gay” measure. This is a conservative leaning troll from another site, who sniffed out this site with hopes of planting seeds of doubt and throwing “first amendment” conservative talk to get us all to put up and shut up and get in the back of the line. His ideology is about as anti anything gay as O’rielly himself. He’ll mince his words, and throw in a lot of “…O but I’m gay, I just don’t follow gay inc” but it’s a bunch of hogwash to fool you. He’s a proud bigot, can’t stand the idea of gays have a prominent PRESENCE in our society, and he especially loathes identifiable gays…you should hear some of his thoughts on the gay community. It’s like being in a time machine right back into the Ragen administration.

December 15, 2010 at 5:12am

IonMusic

@Kevin: If being gay is simply where you stick your stuff and who you F, than why are you on this site? Shouldn’t the only outlet to gay websites be lurking gay porn for you? After all, this site is about gay news topics, but by your logic, being gay is as over simplified as who you skrew. And by that logic, no gay news story is relevant, because again, according to you gay is all about sex. Take a moment and think about that one. Never mind the fact that hetrosexual figures have their wives and mistresses highlighted in history books (we learned about Marilyn Monroe in the same 5th grade lecture as we learned about JFK and yes, their relations were spelled out for us by our teacher, as was the strain it put on Jackie O. We had a book in our elementary school library about Jackie O that I read front and back, and it too brought of the infedelity of her husband) and those hetrosexuals certainly weren’t persecueted for who they were. Also, to borrow your logic of sex equals gay, and sex should never be discussed in classrooms, than we should not be speaking of the off spring/children of any historical figures either. After all, you do know where babies come from, right? well so do 4th and 5th graders and well gee golly, if we start talking about JFK’s children well that would certainly imply a flirtation with sex talk. No? Oh, so it’s only the mention of a gay man that provokes icky poo sexual inclinations. As others have noted, being gay is a multifacted story shared from the lens of stonewall, to AIDS, Prop 8 in California and the legalities, to Harvey Milk, Martin Luther King’s right hand man, to gay bullying, and so much more, none of which includes your one track mind topic of conversation.

December 15, 2010 at 5:12am

Jeffree

Take a look at several of the people posting on this thread: they’re people we’ve not seen before, folks ranting based on very similar talking points and identical agendas.

Ask yourself: why are they here? Why now?

Among the answers to consider: they’re trolls with an agenda to keep historical information about LGBs out of the schools.

December 15, 2010 at 6:12am

Kyle M.

@Jeffree: I’d like to piggyback on your point and the poster who called out Daez above. I’ve been keenly observing this Daez posters comments too, sort of hard to miss considering the fundmentalist approach behind them, and it raised a few eyebrows. Glad to see others have taken notice. I actually found one of his comments from another topic and this is what they wrote and you tell me if you think the following and so many other examples are the words from a gay man?

“Force feeding people our lifestyle will not make anyone accept anything. Also, stop blaming the Christians. The amount of evil that has been perpetrated by evil men in the name of Christ is just disgusting. However, that doesn’t mean that all Christians or Christianity itself is evil.”

So many trigger words, and as StephenAtlanta wrote, there’s so many more examples that clear as day pinpoint this is a troll who is feeding his agenda in a very packaged, systematic way of trying to blend in while spewing ignorance. As if it makes the ignorance any less vivid. He has a right to his ignorance, but it’s important to identify our enemies for who they are not who they are role playing to make a point.

December 15, 2010 at 7:12am

Daez

@Justin O.: Why should they need to know that Harvey Milk existed? What exactly did Harvey Milk accomplish? If your answer begins and ends with what he did for the gay rights movement than I would have to say that he was simply a failure as a congress person because he put the needs of less than 10% of his district and his personal agenda before the needs of the rest of his district.

December 15, 2010 at 10:12am

Daez

@Justin O.: No, every public school and existence is set up for “teach the test” and teaches kids how to memorize and spit out answers. The public school system in this country is actually doing more harm than good to kids, and the first year of college is now spent teaching kids how to actually think and learn instead of teaching them the subjects they should be thinking and learning about.

December 15, 2010 at 10:12am

Daez

@McMike: Do you realize what would actually happen under a school voucher program if the vast majority of parents yanked their kids out of public schools? The schools themselves would cease to exist because they would have no funding. I’m all for the eradication of public schools based on the miserable performance that they have, but it kind of defeats the purpose of such a mandate doesn’t it?

Public schools are already in enough trouble without intentionally pissing off parents that have the right to use vouchers to send their kids to private school.

December 15, 2010 at 10:12am

Daez

@Katie Murphy: Why is it so hard to figure out that the gay community will never win an outright war with religion. It will never happen. Pissing off religion is a sure fire way to lose more rights than we gain.

If you really want rights, then figure out a way to change religion from the inside because something that has existed for 2000+ years isn’t going to suddenly fade away.

Pissing people off in order to get the rights we deserve is just a sure fire way of making people fight back against us. I’m all for teaching about gays in schools if it is requested by the parents and the students. Forcing it upon them will do nothing short of causing them to rally against it.

December 15, 2010 at 10:12am

Daez

@SteveAtlanta:
I’m a realist that realizes that the only progress ever made on the pro-gay side was when we actually worked hand in hand with straight people. Since that time, it is as if the great GLBTQ movement has declared war on the straight community. Its not a war we are winning. Its not a war we can win. I don’t support causes that throw our time and effort at trying to gain rights through virtual warfare. I do support causes that are truly inclusive.

I’m about as conservative as Obama. How come bleeding heart liberals such as yourself only support the concept of free speech when the speech in question benefits them? Do you honestly believe silencing bigots will suddenly make them be less bigoted? I would rather be hated to my face than behind my back.

I support many gay causes. What I don’t support is gays that honestly believe they can force religious organizations and straights to accept them. Seriously, please tell me how far you have gotten by force.

Oh, and on the topic of what I do believe as far as gay rights, I believe in ENDA (even though I would never personally work some place that needed ENDA to force it to hire me), I believe in marriage (although I will personally never feel the need to be married), and I believe in DADT (although I think its silly that we are trying to force a government that doesn’t treat us like actual citizens to let us fight in wars that have very little to do with our actual community).

I don’t support gay adoption (I never will so crucify me). I don’t support gay surrogacy (which is even worse than gay adoption). I don’t support the attempt to force others to change their behavior or vilify them if they don’t. I don’t support the attitudes of most gays that you have to be the stereotypical gay or your aren’t a part of the club. I also don’t support the attitude of gays that if you aren’t out of the closet you must be a self hating homosexual that is hell bent on making the lives of all gays around you harder because you won’t stand up and be counted.

Gays don’t have a prominent presence in our society. Our society doesn’t consist of NYC. There are 49 other states and countless numbers of cities across the country. While you would love for gays to have a prominent spot in all of those societies and SO WOULD I, its just simply not the case. Most of us are just trying to survive.

I have no loathing of identifiable gays since I am one. I don’t know where you got that idea. What exactly are my “thoughts” on the gay community, since you seem to know them better than I do?

December 15, 2010 at 10:12am

WillBFair

@SteveAtlanta,
You really called it about this daez person. He thinks Harvey was a congress person. That alone tells us he is probably not even queer.
And you’re so right about how he mixes bigotry with reasonable sounding comments.
I swear. Having to look into the face of hatred on a daily basis is making me tired. Even here, where we should all be freinds, they spew their venom. It’s disgusting.

December 15, 2010 at 10:12am

Justin O.

@Daez: You have just proved how much we need to learn about Harvey Milk in the schools, because you think he was a “congress person.” He was a city supervisor in San Francisco, the first openly gay elected official in California, and he was elected to represent a heavily gay district.

Even if he were a “Congress person,” how does helping gay people mean putting 10% above everyone else? Those 10% are just as entitled to representation of their needs as anyone else, and unlike other groups, what we’re asking for doesn’t hurt anyone else.

December 15, 2010 at 11:12am

Josh

well it’s about time the government started wising up to reality, and started doing their jobs to protect the people, like it’s supposed to.
Teachers don’t want to follow the curriculum, tough there’s the door. Parents dont want their kids to be decent members of society, tough there’s a religious school that can help incubate hate, lies, and ignorance into.
Parents are against this only because the risk their kids might be less of bigoted jerks, and they might actually know the truth, and do the right thing.

December 15, 2010 at 12:12pm

John (CA)

@Daez

The First Amendment actually says “Congress shall make no law” before enumerating the rights to speech, religion, and assembly.

I am not Congress.

I have neither the responsibility nor the inclination to allow you to disseminate your misinformation unchallenged.

New York City is not a state. Harvey Milk was not a member of Congress. And when you have been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom; have your birthday declared a holiday; and are the subject of an Academy Award winning motion picture, maybe the California Legislature will consider forcing students to learn about your existence too.

December 15, 2010 at 3:12pm

Kyle M.

DAEZ IS A TROLL. He is neither pro gay right nor on the right side of history and rationalizes every anecdote of PRO gay rights into a slant against why we should not experience equality. We all seen it now, he’s been called out, please ignore the troll. Do not feed the trolls. This walking bacteria is seeking attention. Out of sight, out of mind!

December 15, 2010 at 5:12pm

SteveAtlanta

Thanks Daez. You just showed your ass. Copy/paste is a beautiful thing and I will be sure to attach what you said to EVERY post you make on this blog. Your disdain for gays is awesome, and really perks me up knowing you constantly have to be reminded of the very thing you hate everytime you log on this site. As for queer presence, oh baby, we’re everywhere. We’re winning this war. We’re on television, radio, magazine, movies ALL while taking to task all your hetro bunk buddies who don’t see it our way and give us our full respect 100%…hence making a huge fuss about everything that isn’t respectful toward gays. Much to your frustration and dismay. Suck on that :) Love seeing you get all worked up.

December 15, 2010 at 5:12pm

Aaron in Honolulu

“Why should they need to know that Harvey Milk existed? What exactly did Harvey Milk accomplish? If your answer begins and ends with what he did for the gay rights movement than I would have to say that he was simply a failure as a congress person because he put the needs of less than 10% of his district and his personal agenda before the needs of the rest of his district.”

– Sorry Daez, I don’t see how lobbying equal rights for gays and lesbians puts straight citizens in danger or puts their needs at risk. Your statement is completely overgeneralized and one-sided. It’s a sorry excuse to discredit a great man. You are implying that one has to be gay in order to value Harvey Milk’s legacy.

As a man, what’s the purpose of valuing Susan B. Anthony when she only fought for the rights of women? What’s the purpose of learning about how Martin Luther King led the civil rights movement when African Americans only make up 12% of the population?

(1) You don’t have to be a woman to understand how it feels to be discriminated against your gender, (2) You don’t have to be black to know how it feels to be treated differently because of your skin color, and (3) You certainly don’t have to be gay or lesbian to comprehend the pain caused by homophobia and prejudice based on sexual orientation.

December 17, 2010 at 5:12am

Aaron in Honolulu

“Why is it so hard to figure out that the gay community will never win an outright war with religion. It will never happen. Pissing off religion is a sure fire way to lose more rights than we gain. If you really want rights, then figure out a way to change religion from the inside because something that has existed for 2000+ years isn’t going to suddenly fade away. Pissing people off in order to get the rights we deserve is just a sure fire way of making people fight back against us. I’m all for teaching about gays in schools if it is requested by the parents and the students. Forcing it upon them will do nothing short of causing them to rally against it.”

– You are creating a false war of GAYS vs. RELIGION. This is a battle that you conjured in your own head. The gay rights movement has very little to do with religion and more with generational values. An overwhelming majority of 18-30 year old voters actually support same-sex marriage while an overwhelming majority of 65 and older voters strongly oppose. Unfortunately, the anchors for anti-gay voting are senior citizens. And we all know that they are not going to live forever ;)

Are we suppose to be afraid because religious folk are foaming at the mouth from the idea that gay people want equal rights? If anything it makes us more stronger. The fact that the majority of the religious community doesn’t want us to have it, makes us gays want it more.

You can’t force people to accept gay people. It comes through understanding and respect. Which is why education on this subject is needed. Keep in mind when interracial marriage was legalized in 1967, over 70% of the US population was against it. OVER SEVENTY PERCENT!!!!! Multiracial Americans at the time only made up about 2.4% of the population. According to your logic, the US government “forced” interracial marriage on it’s citizens.

December 17, 2010 at 6:12am

jon

seriously, i wish instead of coming out of the closet people would either clean it up or just stay inside. i respect the people its the lifestyle that i can’t stand.